PROJECT SUMMARY: In visual search tasks, observers (Os) look for a target in a visual scene containing distracting stimuli. Some medical screening tasks (e.g. breast cancer & cervical cancer) are difficult visual search tasks. A characteristic of these tasks is low target prevalence. That is, unlike many other real world search tasks (e.g. finding bananas in the fruit aisle) and unlike typical laboratory search tasks, these are searches for targets that appear only rarely. In routine mammography, for example, pathology is present on less than 1% of breast images. We have found that this low target prevalence, by itself, can be a potent source of miss errors in visual search (Wolfe, et al, 2005). In exps. with a range of different search stimuli, we have found that Os miss 0.30 to 0.40 of targets when those targets are present on only 1-2% of search trials. Os miss only 0.05 to 0.10 of the same targets when those targets are present on 50% of search trials. Visual search tasks can be studied as signal detection problems. Os are trying to distinguish displays containing a target signal from those containing only noise. Miss errors can arise from a lack of sensitivity to the target or from setting a decision criterion to a position that causes detectable targets to be classified as non-targets. In other contexts (e.g. vigilance & categorization literatures), the response to a change in target frequency is understood as a shift in criterion, not in sensitivity. We have shown that this is also true in visual search. Low prevalence produces a large shift in criterion that is surprisingly hard to counteract (e.g. by manipulations of costs and benefits for different types of response). Relevance: Medical screening tasks (such as mammograms and pap smears) are examples of searches for rare targets. Our basic research suggests that this rarity, by itself, makes targets more difficult to find. Because of differences between laboratory search tasks and clinical screening tasks and because clinical tasks are performed by highly trained professionals, it would be unwise to generalize from the existing data to the conclusions about errors in medical screening. Therefore, we propose to determine whether this is really true for medical screening tasks, and, if so, test theory-based solutions. The proposed research has three specific aims: 1) to test the hypothesis that prevalence effects are a potential source of errors in breast cancer and cervical cancer screening, 2) to develop and test a model of the effects of prevalence in visual search and 3) to test theoretically and clinically motivated strategies to reduce miss errors. [unreadable] [unreadable] [unreadable]